Glasgow Surname Project

Individual research record

Robert Glasgow

1780 – ?

Glasgow-2963 · 1 mapped association

Scotland→Death place unknown
View on mapOpen WikiTreeCompareReport a correction

At a glance

Identity & family

Tree links organise the family; documentary status still varies.

1Mapped records
4Close relations
1Evidence items
12Candidate leads
Birth
1780 · Scotland
Death
Not recorded · Place not recorded
Parents
James Glasgowunmarked
Spouses
Jean (McConechie) Glasgow
Children
Janet GlasgowRachel Dunlop Glasgow
Gender
Male
WikiTree
Glasgow-2963
Research clusters
Scotland One-Tree profile leads
Mapped descendants
2

Comparison context

These child positions and checks are the subject details used to rank possible parents below.

Naming sequence used by the parentage model

Paternal grandfather positionNot identifiable from dated child profiles
Maternal grandfather positionNot identifiable from dated child profiles
Maternal grandmother positionJanet Glasgow (1809)
Paternal grandmother positionRachel Dunlop Glasgow (1817)

Known-position checks: 0 support · 0 conflict. Ordinals retain unnamed children and recognise reused names.

Estimate and relationship notes
  • 1 parent reference point outside the current export.

Relationship comparison

Potential parents or duplicates

Compare scored leads with the subject details above—not proof.

Higher-signal leadReview carefullyWeak lead

Possible fathers5 leads

Automated fit20/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1760–?Generation20 years age gapRecorded placesScotland · Cookstown, County Tyrone, Ireland · CookstownIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Broad Geography · Rare Branch-Name Recurrence · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same broad administrative area only (+1; not a locality match)

a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same broad administrative area only (+1; not a locality match)
  • uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Rachel +12 (25 public profiles; subject branch: Rachel Dunlop Glasgow; candidate branch: Rachel (Glasgow) Hagan, Rachel Glasgow; +4 repetition bonus) (+12 total)

Deductions and cautions: a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15)

Automated fit16/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1750–1800Generation30 years age gapRecorded placesHarford County, MarylandIndependent clue breadth · 5Age · Household · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Spouse · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 30-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 59 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • known spouse Apphia (Moores) Glasgow had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (23) at the subject's birth (+3)

a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 30-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 59 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • another recorded child shares the subject's birth year (+2; possible twins or date uncertainty)
  • known spouse Apphia (Moores) Glasgow had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (23) at the subject's birth (+3)
  • candidate and subject share the given name Robert (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 165 public profiles)

Deductions and cautions: a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show 3 lower-scoring possible fathers
Automated fit14/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1753–?Generation27 years age gapRecorded placesDublinIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Spouse · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 27-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • known spouse Ann (Duffy) Glasco had a plausible maternal age (24) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate's birth is 56 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 27-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 56 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • known spouse Ann (Duffy) Glasco had a plausible maternal age (24) at the subject's birth (+7)

Deductions and cautions: a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Automated fit13/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1745–?Generation35 years age gapRecorded placesVirginiaIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Household · Spouse · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 35-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 64 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 3 years of the subject (+3)

a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 35-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 64 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 3 years of the subject (+3)
  • known spouse Mary (Stephenson) Glasgow had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (31) at the subject's birth (+3)

Deductions and cautions: a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Automated fit10/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1758–1789Generation22 years age gapRecorded placesCecil, Maryland · Cecil, Maryland.Independent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationExisting-tree context (not an independent clue)Sibling-Household ReplicationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 51 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: James Glasgow → James Glasgow (+3)

a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 51 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: James Glasgow → James Glasgow (+3)

Deductions and cautions: a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Possible mothers5 leads

Automated fit15/100
Weak Lead
Dates1747–1832Generation33 years age gapRecorded placesIrvine, Ayrshire, Scotland · Ontario, Canada · Irvine — AyrshireIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationExisting-tree context (not an independent clue)Sibling-Household ReplicationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 33-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 62 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Robert Glasgow → Jane Glasgow (+3)

same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 33-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 62 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Robert Glasgow → Jane Glasgow (+3)

Deductions and cautions: same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10)

Automated fit13/100
Weak Lead
Dates1758–1850Generation22 years age gapRecorded placesLanarkshire, Scotland · Lanarkshire, Scotland, United Kingdom · Lanarkshire — exact locality unprovedIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Child Naming · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 51 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 51 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • candidate's given name recurs among another recorded child (+1; Janet occurs in 43 public profiles)

Deductions and cautions: same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10)

Show 3 lower-scoring possible mothers
Automated fit11/100
Weak Lead
Dates1746–1851Generationat least 34 years age gapRecorded placesKelso, Roxburghshire, Scotland · Roxburghshire — exact locality unprovedIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Child Naming · Spouse-Specific Child Window · Two-GenerationSame-spouse child windowDavid GlasgowCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • candidate's birth is 63 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • bounded birth date gives a parent-child age gap of at least 34 years (+10; true age remains uncertain)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10)

Show complete scoring
  • bounded birth date gives a parent-child age gap of at least 34 years (+10; true age remains uncertain)
  • candidate's birth is 63 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1767–1786) (+6; other parent David Glasgow)
  • candidate's given name recurs among another recorded child (+1; Janet occurs in 43 public profiles)

Deductions and cautions: same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10)

Automated fit7/100
Weak Lead
Dates1756–1807Generation24 years age gapRecorded placesLondonderry, County Londonderry, Ireland · Adams County, Ohio, USA · County Londonderry — exact locality unprovedIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Rare Branch-Name Recurrence · Spouse-Specific Child Window · Two-GenerationSame-spouse child windowRobert GlasgowCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 24-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 53 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1776–1799) (+6; other parent Robert Glasgow)

candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); candidate already has another child named Robert Barclay Glasgow (Glasgow-8) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 24-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 53 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1776–1799) (+6; other parent Robert Glasgow)
  • uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Rachel +8 (25 public profiles; subject branch: Rachel Dunlop Glasgow; candidate branch: Rachel Ramsey (Glasgow) Graham) (+8 total)

Deductions and cautions: candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); candidate already has another child named Robert Barclay Glasgow (Glasgow-8) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict)

Automated fit5/100
Weak Lead
Dates1763–1793Generation17 years age gapRecorded placesGlasgow, Lanarkshire, Scotland · GlasgowIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Child Naming · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • possible 17-year parent-child age gap (+10)
  • candidate's birth is 46 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10)

Show complete scoring
  • possible 17-year parent-child age gap (+10)
  • candidate's birth is 46 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1809), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • candidate's given name recurs among another recorded child (+1; Janet occurs in 43 public profiles)

Deductions and cautions: same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10)

How parent leads are calculated

Automated leads use birth surnames—not married surnames—as parental eligibility, role-specific biological age limits, bounded and approximate-date uncertainty, household chronology, specific time-aware localities, mapped distance, tenancy succession, migration destinations and sex-aware Scottish naming positions across generations. People already attached as the subject's parents stay in the identity summary and are excluded from this alternative-candidate list, regardless of relationship confidence. The main calibration uses clues available on disconnected profiles; existing parent and sibling links are retained as comparison context rather than treated as transferable evidence. Common ordered names and grandparent-to-child echoes receive a small non-zero weight, so a John or James match can support several independent criteria without producing a lead alone. Rare names, repeated bearers and bundles across otherwise distinct branches receive substantially more weight according to catalogue frequency. An exact migration place is weighted by its rarity and repetition across both branches; a shared destination country is worth only one point. Extra weight is added only when at least three independent clue types converge: naming, locality, specific migration, household chronology or collateral networks. Sparse profiles retain a clearly labelled chronology-only fallback instead of disappearing. Countries, states, counties and research clusters do not count as a shared locality, and fallback, broad representative or kin-inferred coordinates are excluded from distance scoring. Shared descendant profiles are removed before branch-name comparison. A candidate already recorded as a parent-in-law is excluded. A confident or independently supported parent is treated as settled; uncertain and unassessed attachments remain open to alternative comparison. A different linked parent, an uncle/aunt or grandparent path, and a matching existing child profile prevent an alternative from being classified as a strong direct-parent lead until the underlying tree conflict or duplicate is resolved. Familiar forms such as Bessie are normalised. Surname remains an eligibility filter worth zero points.

Naming customs, shared farms and occupations are circumstantial. Children, spouses and collateral relatives may be missing, and tree-derived family networks are not independent evidence. Scores rank research leads; they do not prove parentage.

Same-name candidate

Robert GlasgowGlasgow-1538

Automated fit50/100
Similar Person
Dates1784–?PlacesGlasgow, Lanarkshire, ScotlandParent comparisonNo shared parent is indexed
Why it may fit
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 4 (+18)
  • matching child name: Janet Glasgow

No indexed conflict

Full comparison detail
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 4 (+18)
  • matching child name: Janet Glasgow

Conflicts: No indexed conflict

Open side-by-side comparison

Same-name candidate

Robert GlascoGlasgow-1367

Automated fit38/100
Similar Person
Dates1779–?PlacesCounty Tyrone, IrelandParent comparisonNo shared parent is indexed
Why it may fit
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 1 (+25)

unassessed father attachments differ (−5)

Full comparison detail
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 1 (+25)

Conflicts: unassessed father attachments differ (−5)

Open side-by-side comparison
How duplicate leads are calculated

Dates are eligibility gates, not merely deductions: chronologically impossible people are excluded. Dates, places, spouses, parent certainty and children's profiles and names are then compared. A high score is a prompt to inspect records, not a merge recommendation.

Open only what you need

Research & records

Life and record timelineChronological mapped occurrences and their underlying sources.1 record
b. 1780

Profile-stated birthplace: Scotland

Scotland — exact locality unproved

One-Tree export profile fields are search leads, not sources; relationships are shown only where the export supplies parent links.

One-Tree profile leadunknown
Source and mapping detail

WikiTree profile export for Glasgow-2963

No sufficiently specific citation match found.

Precision: Country-level representative point

Evidence assessmentWhat is supported, uncertain or disputed in the current case model.7 claims
1Tree Only

Documented or strongly supported

No claims in this category have been formally assessed.

Working hypotheses and conflicts

No claims in this category have been formally assessed.

Research questionsOpen problems, missing bridges and the next records to inspect.0 open

No formal open question is recorded for this person.

Sources and provenanceStructured citations and source-quality classifications.1 source

Source or provenance: quality describes the record layer, not every conclusion drawn from it.

  1. tree_only WikiTree profile export for Glasgow-2963
Technical profile and raw captureDataset metadata, machine dossier and captured WikiTree biography.Advanced

WikiTree profile information

Dataset: ONT_Glasco_2026-08-18T16_05.json · generated 2026-08-20

Machine-readable dossier

WikiTree biography, citations and relationship snapshot

Glasgow-2963 was captured 2026-08-07T09:54:35+00:00; WikiTree profile revision 2025-03-27.

Profile location claims

EventDateLocationStatus
birth—ScotlandWikiTree profile field

Immediate relationship snapshot

RelationshipPersonWikiTree IDDates and places returned
ParentsJames GlasgowGlasgow-11421750-03-18 · 1803-00-00
ParentsJeanSimpson-192001754-00-00 · 0000-00-00
ChildrenJanet GlasgowGlasgow-33101809-07-10 · Kilbirnie, Ayrshire, Scotland, United Kingdom · 0000-00-00
ChildrenRachel Dunlop GlasgowGlasgow-33111817-09-18 · Kilwinning, Ayrshire, Scotland, United Kingdom · 0000-00-00
SiblingsJames GlasgowGlasgow-15721774-00-00 · Kilbirnie, Ayrshire, Scotland · 1817-00-00
SiblingsCapt Robert GlasgowGlasgow-34151800-08-18 · West Kilbride, Ayrshire, Scotland · 1855-11-21 · Greenock West, Renfrewshire, Scotland
SpousesJean GlasgowMcConechie-21782-12-14 · Dalry, Ayrshire, Scotland · 0000-00-00

Profile categories

Unsourced_Profiles

Record-bearing passages

  • Biography Robert was born in 1780. He is the son of James Glasgow and Jean Simpson.
  • To my reputed natural mulatto son John and the lawful heirs of his body, I leave the sum of two hundred pounds sterling. To my reputed natural daughter Emilia and the lawful heirs of her body, I leave the sum of five hundred pounds sterling. To Robert, the reputed natural son of my late brother James and the lawful heirs etc... I leave the lawful sum of one hundred pounds sterling. To James the reputed natural son of my said brother etc.... the sum of fifty pounds sterling.' Sources

Profile source citations

No structured source citation was recoverable from the profile biography.

Full captured biography text
Biography
Robert was born in 1780. He is the son of James Glasgow and Jean Simpson.

From Robert Glasgow Jr (abt.1747-1827)

To my reputed natural mulatto son John and the lawful heirs of his body, I leave the sum of two hundred pounds sterling. To my reputed natural daughter Emilia and the lawful heirs of her body, I leave the sum of five hundred pounds sterling. To Robert, the reputed natural son of my late brother James and the lawful heirs etc... I leave the lawful sum of one hundred pounds sterling. To James the reputed natural son of my said brother etc.... the sum of fifty pounds sterling.' 
Sources
Raw WikiTree biography markup
{{Unsourced}}
== Biography ==

Robert was born in 1780. He is the son of [[Glasgow-1142|James Glasgow]] and [[Simpson-19200|Jean Simpson]].

From [[Glasgow-1076|Robert Glasgow Jr (abt.1747-1827)]]

To my reputed natural mulatto son John and the lawful heirs of his body, I leave the sum of two hundred pounds sterling. To my reputed natural daughter Emilia and the lawful heirs of her body, I leave the sum of five hundred pounds sterling. To '''Robert''', the reputed natural son of my late brother James and the lawful heirs etc... I leave the lawful sum of one hundred pounds sterling. To James the reputed natural son of my said brother etc.... the sum of fifty pounds sterling.' 

== Sources ==
<references />